IS LASTING PEACE BASED ON JUSTICE POSSIBLE?
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
13 April 05
In the process of resolution of any conflict, including ours, the
notion of justice is used very often. In this context a number of
questions occur: isit possible to reach peace or conflict resolution
without justice; which is more important, peace or justice? Naturally,
each of the conflict sides considers its claims more fair and
sometimes the only fair ones. In addition, the sides may put forward
various arguments which are often fair. And in this case controversial
arguments on justice come forward, which may seem absurd, for
everybody accepts that there is one justice. In this case, how is it
possible to find justice and what is the fundament of justice? In
order to answer this question it is necessary to analyse briefly the
notion of justice. What do we understand when we say `justice’ and
what is `peace’? We think it would be right to analyse also the
aspects of justice each of which represents justice itself and without
which it is not easy to understand justice, especially in such a
controversial and intricate issue as the resolution of conflicts.
Several general types of justice can be singled out. The most delicate
one is historical justice. It is the kind of justice which is the most
easily accepted by people. For instance, Azerbaijan considers Nagorno
Karabakh the historical land of Azerbaijan, the cradle of Azerbaijani
culture. On the other hand, we do nothave doubts about the historical
and national belonging of Karabakh. The memory of the policy of
discrimination carried out by the Baku authorities against the
Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh is still living with us. What is
more, both the conflict sides consider their standpoints and arguments
historically just, and those of the opposite side unjust and falsified.
If we try to express this idea in a more simple way, we will say that
they do not judge winners.In our case this means that after the war
imposed on us by Azerbaijan, heavy losses of life and destruction the
victory of NKR in the war with all the consequences resulting from it
must be recognized; this will the triumph ofjustice. Compromise can
be regarded as the third form of justice. This is the most intricate
mechanism of achieving justice, which first of all takes into
consideration the actuality and the history and it may result in a
lasting solution of a conflict. Nevertheless, this kind of justice
does not always end in lasting peace. This happens in the case when
the compromise is not reached by the direct sides of the conflict but
the great powers behind them which divide their spheres of influence.
In the light of the above mentioned it becomes clear that for fair
peace it is necessary that the peace and justice should correspond. In
this context I would like to single out two types of peace. The one is
the victory in the confrontation which corresponds to the second type
of justice. The other type of peace is the peace through compromise
which corresponds to the respective type of justice. Fair and lasting
peace may be reached only in the case when the corresponding types of
peace and justice meet. If one of the sides demands historical
justice, it is impossible to achieve peace through compromise. By the
way, historical justice does not have time restrictions,and as it was
mentioned above, it does not always correspond to the facts. The
important thing is that the side claiming for historical justice
should be sure of having reason. The standpoint of Baku in reference
to unacceptability of changes of borders of the former Soviet
Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan isa manifestation of this type of
historical justice. On the other hand, it is difficult to achieve
justice through compromise if one of the conflict sides has achieved
peace through victory in confrontation. By the way, peace and justice
through compromise can be more easily achieved by the winner than the
loser. It is not difficult to guess from the above-mentioned
descriptions of justice and peace that the pivotal component of
conflict resolution is justice. Even if peace was achieved through
forcible means, but the conflict sides and especially the losing side,
recognize the justice of peace (for example, the post-war situation in
Germany and Europe), peace itself becomes fair and lasting. Asto
justice, the first two types mentioned are, actually, unilateral, that
is to say, they are acceptable for only one of the sides. Justice
through compromise may be acceptable for all the conflict sides but in
this case the components of compromise need to be agreed on, which
sometimes renders it impossible. In this case, may there be a
mechanism of conflict resolution when justice and peace mean quite the
opposite things to the sides of the conflict? Which is the standard of
justice accepted by the international community? Certainly, the
Karabakh conflict cannot be solved on the basis of historical justice.
Arguments mainly based on historical justice are strange and
unacceptable for the international community. The absolute circulation
of the post-war actualities is also unacceptable for the international
community. However, it does not mean that the international community
will overlook the historical justice and the post-war reality; in some
cases these will be taken into account by all means. At present human
rights and democracy underlie the system of world political values,
and the international community will take into consideration the
historical aspect and the post-conflict situation, evaluating the
process of building a democratic state on the basis of social justice
in the countries involved in the conflict. In this context the claims
of the side firmly standing on the way of democratization and social
justice will seem more fair to the international community, and
neglecting the historical justice and the reality will seem to them
unfair not only toward the conflict side but, in general, the
principles of democracy. In this respect the Republic of Nagorno
Karabakh has advantages over Azerbaijan. In building a democratic
society we are much ahead of Azerbaijan where building a democratic
society is excluded in the near future because of a number of
objective reasons. First of all, the formation of the Azerbaijani
nation is not over yet. It is still young and disunited. The
Azerbaijani nation, actually, consists of Muslim peoples living in
this republic. Besides Turks, the Talish, Lezgi, Tat people and others
are also referred to as Azerbaijanis. If genuine democracy is
established in Azerbaijan, Baku will have to recognize the right of
self-determination of not only Nagorno Karabakh but also the other
nationalities, for example the Lezgis and the Talish. And this will
threaten the existence of Azerbaijan as an independent
state. Therefore, in the foreseeable future democracy is not possible
there. Consequently, only by keeping to the process of building a
democratic society will we manage to reach peace on the basis of
historical justice. Not playing down the role of the talks between the
presidents and foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan, it can be
stated that the future of Nagorno Karabakh depends on the home
political development in NKR, strengthening of democratic institutions
and democratic values in the country.
DAVIT BABAYAN.
13-04-2005